Rock the Vote '24: update (10/14) - Harris to be interviewed by Fox News on Wednesday

[sblfilms]

15 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

It's like saying the Bulls would have been better without Michael Jordan in the 90's, it's hard to even fathom what that would even mean. Michael Jordan WAS the Chicago Bulls in the 90's.

The data post 2016 pretty heavily suggests Trump is a net negative on GOP electability, while MJ was the best player in the league the entirety of the 90s.

[Mr.Vic20]

I'm scheduled, with my wife, to early vote on Monday the 28th. Blue, all the way down. 

[Reputator]

28 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Trump winning in 2016 caused both parties to shift to the right (Democrats learning the wrong lesson as per usual) to the point that currently the Democrats' border policy makes Reagan look like a commie libcuck, it's kind of hard to imagine what would have happened if Hillary won. Donald Trump would have faded away, for sure.

 

Maybe you have a point about their immigration policy, but everything else? Biden has been pretty far left, namely in student loan forgiveness, reigning in junk fees and proposing medical debt shouldn't affect credit, union support, LGBTQIA+ support, etc. I know I'm missing some. You'd be hard pressed to call the entire party shifted to the right just because of one issue they've been forced to concede on.

[Fizzzzle]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The data post 2016 pretty heavily suggests Trump is a net negative on GOP electability, while MJ was the best player in the league the entirety of the 90s.

I wasn't trying to compare them qualitatively, merely saying that separating Trump from the GOP in 2024 is like separating MJ from the Bulls in the 90s. It doesn't even make sense. Or like trying to imagine Curb Your Enthusiasm without Larry David. Larry David IS Curb Your Enthusiasm. Or like trying to imagine Hot Ones without Sean Evans. Take him out and it's like what do you even have anymore?

 

Trump is so intrinsic to the Republican party in 2024 (for better or worse) that it's crazy to make a statement like "Republicans would have crushed this election if they had anyone other than him." The Republican party would be so wildly unrecognizable without him at this point that it's impossible to guess what they would or wouldn't be.

[Fizzzzle]

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

 

Maybe you have a point about their immigration policy, but everything else? Biden has been pretty far left, namely in student loan forgiveness, reigning in junk fees and proposing medical debt should affect credit, union support, LGBTQIA+ support, etc. I know I'm missing some. You'd be hard pressed to call the entire party shifted to the right just because of one issue they've been forced to concede on.

You're right in some regards. It's easy to forget that Obama was against gay marriage when he was first elected. 

[sblfilms]

5 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

I wasn't trying to compare them qualitatively, merely saying that separating Trump from the GOP in 2024 is like separating MJ from the Bulls in the 90s. It doesn't even make sense. Or like trying to imagine Curb Your Enthusiasm without Larry David. Larry David IS Curb Your Enthusiasm. Or like trying to imagine Hot Ones without Sean Evans. Take him out and it's like what do you even have anymore?

 

Trump is so intrinsic to the Republican party in 2024 (for better or worse) that it's crazy to make a statement like "Republicans would have crushed this election if they had anyone other than him." The Republican party would be so wildly unrecognizable without him at this point that it's impossible to guess what they would or wouldn't be.

I think you’re trying too hard here to make the alternative future hazy. The GOP is not radically different with regard to policy in 2024 compared to 2014. What they are is yoked to a candidate with a permanent 47% ceiling, a candidate who pulls along other unelectable candidates through the primaries and ruining otherwise easy wins for the GOP.

[5timechamp]

 

Kamala going to Houston on Friday.. so they have great confidence in their blue wall or theyre playing loose and arrogant about the whole thing… “Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory type nonsense”

 

69% of the way to getting that +500,000 firewall in PA sure sounds hopeful

 

 

[SaysWho?]

Dropped off my ballot today. There is actually one local Republican who has been the lone sane voice in a sea of crazy on the county board, the first Republican I ever voted for. He's likely going to cruise to a win anyway, but I had to debate about it a while before casting my ballot for him.

 

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Senate and Harris/Walz for president. Yes on marijuana legalization and abortion rights.

 

35 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Maybe you have a point about their immigration policy, but everything else? Biden has been pretty far left, namely in student loan forgiveness, reigning in junk fees and proposing medical debt shouldn't affect credit, union support, LGBTQIA+ support, etc. I know I'm missing some. You'd be hard pressed to call the entire party shifted to the right just because of one issue they've been forced to concede on.

 

32 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

You're right in some regards. It's easy to forget that Obama was against gay marriage when he was first elected. 

 

We've already had long arguments about this, so I'm not going to rehash it. But I thought the same thing Reputator did. Ex: when Dennis Kucinich was a long-shot far-left Dem candidate in 2004, one of the things he advocated for was universal pre-K. That was part of the three-pronged Build Back Better program that Biden spent a ton of political capital on. Between that, making it easier to unionize, huge anti-trust initiatives from the FTC, actual climate progress, diversifying federal judges to include civil rights lawyers and defense attorneys, gun control, a substantial infrastructure law, student loan relief, and straight up standing on a picket line, he's done a lot to reverse the triangulation from the 90s that was the core of the Democratic Party.

 

At one point or another, I know that progressives have made points for all this since I started to pay attention to politics.

 

4 minutes ago, 5timechamp said:

 

Kamala going to Houston on Friday.. so they have great confidence in their blue wall or theyre playing loose and arrogant about the whole thing… “Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory type nonsense”

 

69% of the way to getting that +500,000 firewall in PA sure sounds hopeful

 

 

 

She's going to need the Senate if she wins (or loses, honestly), so it could also be to help Allard against Cruz.

[Fizzzzle]

Don't pay too much attention to me, I'm just getting the September/October blues that happens during every election year when it feels like the Democrats for Senate/President/Governor go "thanks for playing, Progressives, now it's time to let the grown-ups speak."

 

It is important to remember the progress that has been made, even if it feels like Democrats chop off a toe every time they make a step forward.

[MarSolo]

5 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

Mick Foley’s quote is a bit deceptive, Trump was asking about the mats and if they were hard, or basically cushioned. 

He’s been in a ring.

 

He even took bumps!

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

It's so crazy to hear about all these choices on the ballot. My provincial election is this week, and my ballot will be paper-and-pencil and have a single choice: my MLA (member of legislative assembly). Everything else derives from that, there are no elected positions beyond your representative, as the government hires or appoints everyone else (most are just bureaucratic positions that are non-political, and in the public service). Makes it easy to vote, if less exciting; I just walk into a booth, fill in the little circle, and leave.

[PaladinSolo]

Interesting info, this is the first election in TX where white voters will not make up the majority of the eligible population.

[S3xB0t]

The Democratic Party is liberalizing at the same rate as society, at least in my estimation. I was just looking at polling trends for gay marriage from Gallop, and since 2000 the country has performed a complete reversal in its stance. I think the current conflict is that liberalization is now pushing against conservatism to the point that people are mad, hence MAGA. 
 

[Mr.Vic20]

7 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Interesting info, this is the first election in TX where white voters will not make up the majority of the eligible population.

And yet…

[5timechamp]

Society (at least in US) seems to be liberalizing… but the resistance is as cruel as ever..

  Hell I hate that old f’n dinosaurs like McConnell and the rest of the old generations guard are still around forcing their antiquated values on a younger generation from whom they are seemingly totally disconnected (specially on values)… but honestly the new GOP/Nationalist/MAGA generation isnt any better… theyre significantly more aggressive, dont give ground and are quite comfortable being dishonest dealers in view of everyone..

[5timechamp]

12 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Interesting info, this is the first election in TX where white voters will not make up the majority of the eligible population.

 

they should have legalized abortion and let the “non-whites” terminate “future” voters

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I think you’re trying too hard here to make the alternative future hazy. The GOP is not radically different with regard to policy in 2024 compared to 2014. What they are is yoked to a candidate with a permanent 47% ceiling, a candidate who pulls along other unelectable candidates through the primaries and ruining otherwise easy wins for the GOP.

The officeholders often aren’t that much different (mostly because the party doesn’t really believe in much other than tax cuts) but whew Lordy the rank and file are sprinting right especially on immigration.  Theres none coming out against the ethnic cleansing that is being proposed as one of the two major planks of trumps campaign. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Unsurprisingly, DJT will be appearing on Rogan's show this Friday.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The officeholders often aren’t that much different (mostly because the party doesn’t really believe in much other than tax cuts) but whew Lordy the rank and file are sprinting right especially on immigration.  Theres none coming out against the ethnic cleansing that is being proposed as one of the two major planks of trumps campaign. 

 

Also why I'm a little dubious about how much ditching Trump (or having him finally die) will actually help them. You can't make it out of a Republican primary without being batshit and all of their possible replacements who meet that criterion have negative charisma. 

[Kal-El814]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Unsurprisingly, DJT will be appearing on Rogan's show this Friday.

 

The fact that so many people seem to be interested in the takes of folks like Rogan, Theo Von, or podcasters in general is baffling to me. I appreciate that there's some broad appeal in an "everyman" asking questions but it's chronically depressing that people seem to gain insight from the most basic questions being asked by people who aren't experts on anything. I probably need to keep my windows closed when I'm using plastic cement.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Also why I'm a little dubious about how much ditching Trump (or having him finally die) will actually help them. You can't make it out of a Republican primary without being batshit and all of their possible replacements who meet that criterion have negative charisma. 

And negative electoral success doesn’t seem to motivate them to moderate, even after they win! Places like MA, MD, and CA (Arnold) they might win the governorship but then the base turns on the governor, learns nothing, and doesn’t really win anything else. 
 

Hell even in Ohio dewine got a mere plurality of the primary vote to then massively out perform in the general but they’d rather have a charlatan or psychopath true believer than someone who can win big. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Unsurprisingly, DJT will be appearing on Rogan's show this Friday.

I’d love Rogan to actually push back on Trump (he does do this occasionally) but I’m not optimistic

[SaysWho?]

 

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I’d love Rogan to actually push back on Trump (he does do this occasionally) but I’m not optimistic

 

I share your lack of optimism, Rogan has been platforming nonsense for so long I'm not sure even Trump's level of crazy is enough for him to wake out of his nonsense coma to push back.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I’d love Rogan to actually push back on Trump (he does do this occasionally) but I’m not optimistic

 

Trump is however incapable of a back and forth and was that way even before the dementia, so this format could backfire bigly for him. 

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

The fact that so many people seem to be interested in the takes of folks like Rogan, Theo Von, or podcasters in general is baffling to me. I appreciate that there's some broad appeal in an "everyman" asking questions but it's chronically depressing that people seem to gain insight from the most basic questions being asked by people who aren't experts on anything. I probably need to keep my windows closed when I'm using plastic cement.

 

I don't get it either. I know if Kamala ends up going as it seems the campaign is working the details on, they feel they can tap an untapped audience.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/kamala-harris-could-join-podcaster-joe-rogan-an-interview-sources-2024-10-15/

[Firewithin]

chud dana white about to have a conversation with rogan before the dipshit actually does it i bet 

[Best]

@Ominous @marioandsonic @MarSolo

 

I just want to be crystal clear that I'm voting for Harris. 

[SuperSpreader]

I'll probably vote here in TX this week. I just don't know where they stand on the issues. Hopefully I'll hear a little more by then.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I thought that this was an excellent article that articulates the challenges facing "progressives" when it comes to addressing the problems facing young men, especially since it offers genuine solutions.

 

Democrats’ Problem With Male Voters Isn’t Complicated - Male grievances can be harnessed by reactionary forces. But there’s a simple way to prevent that.

 

Quote

 

There is, though, a policy paradox here that Democrats could take advantage of. The Republicans are signaling a pro-male stance, but without any policy substance. The Democrats have existing initiatives that are a good starting point for a strong pro-male policy platform. But they have been reluctant to package them as such and could do much more.

 

There is a real political opportunity right now for a party to craft an agenda that speaks to men — and addresses their real problems.

 

 

Quote

 

Contrary to progressive belief, young men are not turning into a generation of misogynists. Support for gender equality continues to rise, including among men under 30. The problem seems more to be that many men simply don’t see much recognition of their issues, or even of their identity, on the political left.

 

If the Democrats are the “women’s party,” as one party strategist claimed, it might not be surprising that men are looking in another direction. The official party platform lists the groups it is proud to serve; women are listed but men are not. There is a new Gender Policy Council in the White House, but it has not addressed a single issue facing boys or men.

 

The failure to engage with men’s issues is proving to be a costly mistake, particularly in our politics and culture. The challenges facing many men, especially working-class men and men of color, are not the confections of the online “manosphere.” They are real. But they have not been sufficiently addressed, or sometimes even acknowledged. This has left a vacuum, which has been filled, in many cases, by more reactionary voices from the manosphere.

 

 

Quote

 

When problems are neglected, they metastasize into grievances. And grievances can be weaponized in service of reactionary goals. The solution, then, is almost comically simple: Don’t neglect the problems.

 

The mistake being made on both sides is to see gender equality as a zero-sum game; that to do more for boys and men means doing less on behalf of girls and women. There is so much more to do for girls and women, and not just on the health care front: investing in the care economy to help working mothers especially; increasing the share of women in critical occupations, not least the worlds of tech and politics; modernizing career ladders to reduce the “parenting penalty”; reducing barriers to accessing capital for women entrepreneurs and much more.

 

But working on behalf of women doesn’t require politicians to turn their backs on men. In the real world, the interests of men and women are not pitted against each other, however much our culture warriors tell us otherwise. There are plenty of progressive young women out there worried about their brother’s mental health, plenty of working-class women concerned about their husband’s job prospects. It is hard to create a society of flourishing women if men are floundering.